Started By
Message

The infamous "140 Rule"
Posted on 1/9/13 at 7:54 am
Posted on 1/9/13 at 7:54 am
The thread some of us older guys were pontificating in reminded me of the 140 Rule and how it caused a shirt of sorts, in Southern Football, that we are still realizing today.
For those younger guys not familiar with it and how it changed things, an excerpt from Bobby Dodd's book:
https://www.stingtalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-4395.html
There was a lot that led up to that ...
For those younger guys not familiar with it and how it changed things, an excerpt from Bobby Dodd's book:
https://www.stingtalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-4395.html
quote:
"I just could not compete with those damn state universities. And Auburn is just as easily a state university. They could take these same boys we couldn't take, who wanted to come and play for me. And it just broke me down. I couldn't beat'em. You can just out-coach'em some of the time, brother. Better football players will beat you."
There was a lot that led up to that ...
quote:
"Bobby Dodd insisted there was no other reason he left the SEC, other than the 140 Rule. The 140 Rule stated a college program could only have 140 football and basketball players on scholarship at any one time. The teams were allowed to sign up to 45 players a year, but could not exceed the 140 Rule.
Dodd would not allow any of the football players choosing Tech to be dismissed from Tech, because they were not good players. Dodd said, “it is not the recruits fault for not making the squad, it was the coaches fault for misjudging their talents”. If a recruit came to Tech, he would stay on a football scholarship until he graduated.
Dodd would sign about 30-32 players a year to meet the guidelines, but the other schools in the SEC were offering 45 scholarships a year. Those players, not good enough to fall under the 140 Rule, had their scholarships withdrawn and sent packing before the end of each year. Dodd insisted, the recruiting of athletes by this method amounted to nothing more than a tryout for a scholarship.
Dodd thought it unfair and would not withdraw scholarships from his players. He wanted the SEC to limit the amount of scholarships to about 32 per year. This would keep the other schools from offering 45 scholarships, picking the best, and sending the rest packing.
A vote was to be taken by the presidents of the colleges on the issue, and Dodd made it clear, Tech would have to leave the SEC unless the rule was changed. Dodd said he would live with 10, 20, 30, 40, or even 50 recruits per year as long as he did not have to chase any of his players off.
The presidents were split six for Dodd’s position and six against. Bear had promised Dodd he would get his president to vote for Dodd’s position, which would have changed the rule.
When the meeting was held, Bryant did not show up and the Alabama president voted against Dodd’s position and the 140 Rule was upheld. Tech’s president immediately walked to the podium and announced Tech was withdrawing from the SEC. Bryant never told Dodd why he reneged on his promise."
quote:
History goes on to show that Bryant and the Alabama football program went on to have one of the greatest runs in college football history. From 1963 until Bryant's retirement Alabama won 192 games, with 11 ten win season, 12 SEC championships, and 5 National Championships. It would have been interesting to see how things would have panned out had the SEC voted in favor of reform on oversigning and GT stayed in the SEC.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 7:57 am to scrooster
Bear Bryant created the process and Nick Saban has perfected it.
Bama has been screwing kids over for damn near 50 years.
Bama has been screwing kids over for damn near 50 years.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 8:00 am to scrooster
I just read a quick portion of that link. That guy might want to fact check his book.
ETA: And does your Auburn quote even come from that link?
ETA: And does your Auburn quote even come from that link?
This post was edited on 1/9/13 at 8:04 am
Posted on 1/9/13 at 8:03 am to WDE24
quote:
Bear Bryant created the process and Nick Saban has perfected it. Bama has been screwing kids over for damn near 50 years.
I guess that's why a guy like Carson Tinker was given a scholarship last year.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 8:22 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
I just read a quick portion of that link. That guy might want to fact check his book.
ETA: And does your Auburn quote even come from that link?
I think that quote came from the AJC, I cannot remember where I was copying/pasting from ... but I think it was from an AJC Blog that linked to the excerpts I linked from in their entirety.
It's too late for me to know for sure because I've already closed the browser on those and gotten back to work, but I'm pretty sure I was on an AJC blog page originally.
If it is incorrect or inaccurate by all means note corrections - none of it is mine which is why I used the quote feature.
I remember the discussion about the 140 Rule well into the 70s though. It was the ACC and their minions who, felt it gave the SEC an unfair advantage, that made the biggest deal of it back then through their city's newspapers.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 8:28 am to scrooster
I have no problem with kids being "processed". If you go on an academic scholarsip and your grades drop, you lose it. If your althletic performance is not up to par, why should you be treated any differently. They can still transfer to a school that will offer them.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 8:29 am to scrooster
quote:
140 Rule well into the 70s though. It was the ACC and their minions who, felt it gave the SEC an unfair advantage
If I am not mistaken, the 140 rule was NCAA, not an SEC exclusive rule. it was the yearly signing and processing in the summer before the season, that rustled jimmies.
quote:
If it is incorrect or inaccurate by all means note corrections
I just find it funny that someone can write a book, if it actually went to print, that states something as a fact, but not even be close to true
Posted on 1/9/13 at 8:30 am to scrooster
quote:
Tech’s president immediately walked to the podium and announced Tech was withdrawing from the SEC
That worked out great for them.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 8:31 am to SmackoverHawg
quote:
I have no problem with kids being "processed". If you go on an academic scholarsip and your grades drop, you lose it. If your althletic performance is not up to par, why should you be treated any differently. They can still transfer to a school that will offer them.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 8:35 am to Alahunter
quote:
That worked out great for them.
Well, in Tech's defense, they do have a national championship in football that is more recent than Georgia's most recent title.

Posted on 1/9/13 at 8:36 am to SmackoverHawg
quote:
They can still transfer to a school that will offer them.
Not really, FTR I dont have a problem with processing, its the rules behind it, that are the problem. if a player is released from a team, he should be allowed to play at any school without losing a year.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 8:38 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
a player is released from a team, he should be allowed to play at any school without losing a year
I agree with this. If they have their scholly pulled they should be able to play immediately and at any school they choose. No conference or other stipulations.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 11:32 am to SmackoverHawg
quote:
I agree with this. If they have their scholly pulled they should be able to play immediately and at any school they choose. No conference or other stipulations.
I agree too, IF they have their scholly yanked from them.
But if they choose to leave they should have to sit-out a year, as it is now.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 11:36 am to SmackoverHawg
I agree with this. But then you will have these primadonnas that get a little irked about something and sandbag purposely just so they can transfer. They need a little incentive to stick around even if the coach just got through chewing them out and their feelings are hurt.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 11:43 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Well, in Tech's defense, they do have a national championship in football that is more recent than Georgia's most recent title.
1/2 a title and the only one since the Korean War, but I guess the point still stands
Posted on 1/9/13 at 11:45 am to tylerdurden24
quote:
1/2 a title and the only one since the Korean War, but I guess the point still stands
1997 Nebraska also had half a title. A title claim is a title claim, especially when it's awarded to you by the AP or the Coaches.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 12:00 pm to RollTide1987
It's a half title. UPI Coaches is the only meaningful poll that voted Tech as national champion.
Coaches poll is almost more worthless than the AP. At least the AP can sit around and watch football when its played. Coaches that vote for themselves don't have time to watch every game, and coaches that don't vote pass it off to some office naive who tosses bias into it.
At least when LSU and USC split in 03, LSU had actually won the sanctified "National Title Game". Tech just beat #19 Nebraska in the Citrus Bowl while Colorado beat #6 Notre Dame in the Orange Bowl.
Coaches poll is almost more worthless than the AP. At least the AP can sit around and watch football when its played. Coaches that vote for themselves don't have time to watch every game, and coaches that don't vote pass it off to some office naive who tosses bias into it.
At least when LSU and USC split in 03, LSU had actually won the sanctified "National Title Game". Tech just beat #19 Nebraska in the Citrus Bowl while Colorado beat #6 Notre Dame in the Orange Bowl.
Back to top
